Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Shubha21 18:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)discuss the principles of job design

Evasion of policy at WP:U

What the hell is with the American flag? She's clearly Mexican, and she should represent her real flag. However, I'm 3rd generation Mexican-American, and I always prefer my original Mexican flag. I believe she would also find this offensive that wikipedia hides her real identity. If she's not Mexican then she should have the right to represent her real native flag. To compromise this disgusting suppression; she should have two flags, so the other Americans won't feel so insecure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.35.15 (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names, and it was suggested that I also raise it here.

My original question:

Maaparty (talk · contribs) uses the signature --God and religion are distinct. I've asked him to change it (and in fact I've blocked him for an unrelated offence), but if he refuses to change, can he be blocked under the User-name policy, or is there some other route?

Everyone agrees that this shouldn't be allowed, but it seems that the fact (yet again) that Wikipedia:Signatures is only a guideline, not a policy, means that all a user needs to do (perhaps when blocked after an RfC on his User name) is choose an innocuous User name and then use the blocked name in his sig.

Any ideas as to how to deal with this? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that WP:SIG should loosely reflect the rules that currently exist at WP:U otherwise it basically makes a mockery of the process. There's nothing essentially wrong with Nuclear Jesus Hentai Terrorism (a summary of last week's WP:U :) ) as a signature. At the very least, it should be non-offensive although some of the issues (like the "=" sign) should not apply to sigs - Alison^☺ 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. the question is, what ones do apply? and how to enforce it. I personally feel that, as stated above, many of the username policies should apply to signatures. (with a few exceptions, such as non latin characters etc etc). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - May I make a suggestion? I could possibly come up with a sub-set of the WP:U policy, merge it into the existing WP:SIG guidelines and post it under here as a sub-page for commentary. As things are hashed out, editors can hack away on it until consensus is reached. Thoughts?? - Alison^☺ 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - I like that suggestion! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start. The problem, though, will still be that this page isn't policy. As I've argued (with some support) above, that should change. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'll try putting something together over the next day or so. I guess it won't become policy anyway until something concrete is done and a rough consensus is achieved. Things are broken the way they are right now so we may do our best to patch it up - Alison^☺ 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would unequivocally support WP:SIG being integrated into WP:U. If :V, :RS and :OR can be tied together as WP:ATT, then these two can and should be. Deiz talk 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Latin, but the other way round

I've just come across a signature in Greek, thought the user name isn't. Any thoughts? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. We have several users, such as User:Nihonjoe, who sign in Japanese, and I'm thinking Japanese fonts are a bit less common than Greek ones are. --tjstrf talk 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand the problem; we ask people with non-Latin User names to use a Latin version in their signatures; it's surely perverse to allow people with Latin-text User names to use a non-Latin signature. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A signature whose sole purpose on an English Wikipedia is to produce a greeked version of the latin username is a bad idea. This is so obvious that it shouldn't be difficult to convince the user in question. --Tony Sidaway 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section about language and alphabet because I think it's a bit too much like telling kids not to stuff beans up their noses.

Language and alphabet

Signatures with non-Latin script should also include Latin script.

If your preferred signature consists of characters not in the Latin alphabet (hànzì, for example) you should include Latin characters also. Typically, this might be a Latin transliteration of your username, alongside your actual username. This is because characters not within the ASCII character set may not display properly for everyone. This is a particular problem for people who use screen readers. This also makes it easier to search for your username using the search function, and for other editors to refer to you.

Why would most users on an English-speaking wiki want to use a non-latin signature? Those who need to because their username employs non-latin characters will have a default signature with the same appearance, and may modify it easily. Those who have latin usernames shouldn't be obfuscating them by using alphabets not readily understood by all other editors. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal links

I've changed the wording on internal links to read:

Although it is always better to put information on your userpage rather than your signature, including brief additional internal links is generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication, or to provide general information, but undesirable if seen as canvassing for some purpose.

We should not be encouraging editors to use their signatures as miniature user pages, because this seriously degrades the editing environment for participants on discussion pages, so I'm emphasizing the fact that the user page can hold links without causing this clutter. --Tony Sidaway 06:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change: adding talk and contributions

I think it would be much more convenient if ~~~~ signatures were changed from Atropos 06:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) to Atropos (talk | contributions) 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC), don't you? Atropos 06:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Post Script: Upon rereading what I wrote, I immediately worried I would be perceived as meaning my own signature. I want to clarify that I mean changing the basic unpersonalized four tildes. Atropos 06:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if you mean it should be the default behavior that would probably require a change to the Mediawiki code. As you seem to realise, it is possible to alter your own signature so that it behaves as you want. --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I expected it requires a change to the WikiMedia code. Hmmm, is there a place to suggest that for whenever it is updated again? I think it would be a very convenient change. Atropos 06:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a talk link, but not a contribs link, it seems superfluous. John Reaves (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(Poor writing, by I'm up very late.) My reason for requesting a contributions link was that it is sometimes nice to be able to see if a user is a first time contributor. Also, I can see no easy way to get the contributors page from either the user page or the talk page. Also, it is included in the history. Also, many users include it in their personalized signatures.

There's a link for user contributions below the search bar on every userpage. – Riana ^ऋ 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow. I need to look there more often in general, I always forget where the What links here link is too. Atropos 07:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Reaves; I'd certainly support the addition of a Talk link, but not one to Contributions. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A contribs link by default would be helpful on the Help Desk, to provide context to what people are saying. Anyway, you can request software changes at mediazilla:, but it should probably be discussed somewhere like WP:VPR first, as the developers won't make changes without consensus. --ais523 10:46, 12 April 2007 (U T C)

It sometimes convenient to have links to everything. But how many links are ever needed? It is trivial to find the proper Talk page for a linked user. (SEWilco 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

I would support an extra link to the talkpage. I find it slightly annoying to have to click twice when I'm trying to get something done quickly. If that's not possible, I'd support having the default link as just the talkpage... that's more important than the userpage, isn't it? – Riana ^ऋ 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like this, for anons and users who have not made user pages. It is useful. Most users already have some sort of talk link in their sigs anyway, but for those who don't this would be useful. I think it would be nice in the following format:

User123 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With or without the parentheses would be good. The only "problem" with this is the added code for the sig, but no big deal. (Speaking of which, I should probably tone my own down some!) _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the "talk" link for sure; and probably agree with the contribs link too, because it lets you know if it's a new user, or a monomaniac. Flipside: providing a contribs link automatically might encourage duellists to stalk one another's contribs. Wiser heads than I may have strong feelings about which result is more likely: helpful, or creating a convenient new vulnerability for users with vendettas to exploit? -- Lisasmall 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I have read this whole page, and I have no idea why people are mad about signatures. Please inform me on what you people mean? 24.45.77.197 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently some users are tempted to customize their signature to the point where it makes a page almost unreadable; this page is designed to help keep such tendencies in check. (How far is too far is a matter for debate.) --ais523 11:39, 20 April 2007 (U T C)

Proposed changes

There is a centralized discussion in WT:U#Proposal regarding non-Latin usernames. This discussion on the policy page may affect the content of this guideline too. You are welcome to participate. Niko Silver 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

255 character limit in raw code?

Did something change in the guidelines for signature? My sig, unchanged for months, suddenly stopped working. I checked My Preferences and there was a red message: "Nickname too long; must be under 255 characters." Is this a change in policy/the software? As of now, I guess my html has been truncated to 255 characters and reads

--[[User:Valley2city|Valley2city]][[User talk:Valley2city

Valley2city 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so. Seems like the people with the most basic signature enforced this limit, but it shouldn't. This is because this is only a guideline, not a policy. (→zel zany - uses a new sig) 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The code of Mediawiki, the wiki engine which powers Wikipedia, has been altered to enforce this limit. It's quite a generous limit. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Generous? I don't think so. (→zel zany - uses a new sig) 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any limit should be optional provided the signature is done in good taste, not too ostentatious. my sig used to be relatively simple but over 255 chars: Valley2city^₪‽. Has this been discussed because I had no idea it was going on? It ruins a lot of good and recognizable signatures and, until you changed it on the WP:Signatures page, apparently an unknown/unestablished policy. Valley2city 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, mine seems okay, ^(H) 05:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

H, this limit wouldn't affect your signature because it only affects peeps with 255 chars or more and you are at 97, including spaces. Valley2city 05:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. ^(H) 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked my colorful sig... Hmm, so this is a developer thing, then? I think I will ask the big guy. Valley2city 05:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You could always use more tightly-written HTML in your sig, to bring it under 255 characters while keeping the same styling. --bainer (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess those naughty developers must really hate hideous signatures. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as Tony Sidaway did as to say it is a generous limit, but it's certainly a more than reasonable one. I personally can see no reason why any sig should be longer than 255 characters; this has been discussed in depth for many months, and there was a definite consensus on this point. Bearing in mind that each character occupies 2-4bytes, a 255 character sig occupies 510-1020 bytes (almost 1kb), and these sigs are then repeated again and again and again across thousands upon thousands of edits per each user. Naturally the resource required for signatures is quite minimal in contrast, but it's still a waste. Coupled with the illegibility of posts suffixed by a several hundred character signature, full of html garbage, I certainly think imposing such a limit was the right call. I'll put it simply this way -- if you can find me one way that having a signature longer than 255 characters will help us to write a better encyclopedia, I'll gladly reconsider. I can give you many reasons, however, why they have served as a hindrance to the building of the encyclopedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cute... I just want to know why there wasn't any publicized discussion. I am sure there would have been a lot of people who would have wanted input on this. On the other hand, maybe there was discussion but I didn't know about it. Maybe a message sent to Category:Wikipedians with obscenely long signatures would have been nice. Valley2city 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cute" was directed toward Tony's comment, by the way. You definitely both make good points. But I find signatures to be creature comforts, much like user page designs, which make Wikipedia more homey and comfortable. I know what you're about to say, how this is not the purpose of wikipedia, but I believe that little things like this encourage more prolific and higher quality contributors. I believe wikipedia to truly be a community and I think all of the signatures looking the same would lead to a very sterile environment. Valley2city 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe the developers, for the reason they were trusted to do such actions, decided to improve Wikipedia through technical features? No, that can't be the case - obviously they're acting unilaterally and deliberately to annoy the masses, and bring down the encyclopedia. Daniel 05:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a configuration variable, and 255 is the default. If there's consensus to set it to some other value, I'm sure that developers would oblige. --ais523 08:34, 14 June 2007 (U T C)

Sounds good. We could ask for it to be reduced to something more sensible: 100 characters might be a bit tight, but I'm pretty sure all reasonable signatures could fit into 150. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mine is 121 today (including the timestamp; it varies according to how long the name of the month is), but much longer (193) before it's substed into a page (because I play tricks with the timestamp and so have to include code to exactly copy a standard timestamp into the sig; I might be able to shorten it by inventing a new template or by using ParserFunctions rather than magic words, though, but so far I haven't bothered because it doesn't affect the length of the markup on the page). --ais523 15:38, 14 June 2007 (U T C)

Bug 8458 --32X 09:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish all those people with so called "relatively simple" signatures would only use them on their own user_talk pages. By the way, the reference to "homey" user pages is very flawed: users are free to visit or not visit other users pages, while with these awful distracting signatues we don't have a choice. As for variable, I'd vote for 100 bytes Alex Smotrov 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think my 193-character-raw (less when included in a page using tildes) sig is excessive? What about [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Jimbo Wales|contribs]]) (115 characters; this is just a made up example). What about [[User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh]]? That's 70 by itself (it's the longest username I could find in the list of admins, tied with "Can't sleep, clown will eat me"; just think what might happen if the list of all usernames except username-blocked ones were taken into account (although very long usernames tend to get blocked)), so there wouldn't even be room for a talk link there (and some people, such as me, would like a talk and possibly contribs link by default, which would make the default sig illegal under such a low limit). --ais523 15:34, 14 June 2007 (U T C)

I don't think it's excessive. In fact, users should choose how to present themselves. For example, TwinsMetsFan cuts it down to TMF, and I am zelzany when I'm supposed to be vishwin60. Thing is, you cannot safely assume users will want to present themselves one way or another. (→zel zany - is one angry user) 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should also mention that I'm against extra links in signatures as well, simply because WP:SIG is missing "always use user-talk-contibs scheme" rule. So people put all kinds of links in the sig, and it's simply not worth the time to point my mouse and then read where the link goes.

As for long names, it is already not fair. Hopefully someday the software could substract the length of one's name before imposing the limit on sig Alex Smotrov 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What if users don't want to shorten their names? (→zel zany - is one angry user) 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To add another point to this, this page is only a guideline. We have no right to enforce it as a policy. (→zel zany - is one angry user) 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines aren't that toothless. They give us a clue as to how to behave. People have been blocked for persistently using very large signatures that had other problems, while insisting that they could ignore this because it's only a guideline. . --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that Alex Smotrov is suggesting that users with longer names be given extra sig quota. You'd have to add twice the length of their names, though, for the pipe target and display text of the link (or three times if you want to allow a talk link, which would be reasonable, or four times to allow a contribs link as well, but then users who just have a userpage link could have a more complicated sig if they had a longer name). Such a suggestion is possibly inadvisable, though, as some of the more obvious reasons I can think of that sig length has been limited (saving space at the end of each comment, and making edit pages less cluttered to read) won't be helped by extra sig quota for users with long usernames. I'm not sure if 'fairness' comes into it; sig length limits alone aren't that good a way to enforce signature guidelines anyway, because I could come up with a blatantly annoying and useless signature in hardly any characters. --ais523 16:34, 14 June 2007 (U T C)

I concur with ais523. If somebody thought outside of the box on usernames (without any disregard to the username policy), this guideline would be toast already. (→zel zany - is one angry user) 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My only concern about limiting sig length is the effect it might have on users who's username is in a non-latin character set, who are expected to have a latin sig to 'disambiguate'. I don't know enough about foreign names and their latin-conversions to know if it is an actual problem, or if it's something that'll only affect a tiny number of people. Dan Beale 11:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's a username limit 50 characters. So the maximum "needed" would be 110, so 255 should be more than enough for any legitimate uses. Personally, I think this is the best technical enhancement Wikipedia has had since cascading protection, and would fight to keep it. Ridiculously long signatures are just irritating and useless. Wikipedia doesn't gain from these horrible things, and the only people who complain are the minority abusing them in the first place - 255 characters is hardly a restrictive limit. -Halo 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I concede that it is indeed feasible to have a kickin' sig even with a 255 limit, which I realize now is generous. With retooling, identical signatures are possible using half of the raw code length. Thank you to everyone who posted suggestions on my talk page. That's one of the great things about the wikipedia community. Valley2city 05:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this was finally done, eh? I remember the limit being talked about long ago, and how we were just waiting for the devs to update it. 255 seems like a good number to me. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's a new technical limit on sig length, how come it isn't happening on all wikis? On Spanish Wikipedia, where I also edit, I regularly see signatures that would not be tolerated over here; lots of users there even use images in their sigs. One good example is[1], and check out this deletion vote page, where most of the voters had images in their signatures. I understand the argument for limiting sig length, but why only on English Wikipedia? Walton^talk 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The code is common for all Wikipedias (as far as I know). Those people simply go around the limit by using templates. Even if this "workaround" was fixed, nothig can stop dedicated people from pasting any arbitrary long text as their signature (and then adding ~ 5 times to insert timestamp). The real limit imho should be imposed with site policy. The same goes for images in signatures ∴ Alex Smotrov 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was just curious as to why there's a discrepancy in signature policy between different projects; to be honest, I don't really see the point in limiting signature sizes, except possibly on major community discussion pages where it clutters up crowded edit boxes. Walton^talk 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi, this is being discussed again at WP:VPR#Reduce allowed length for signatures and usernames. --Quiddity 17:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Recourses

What recourse can be taken with a user that refuses to improve a bad and misleading signature? The user's sig does not link to either their user or talk page and their actual user name is not reflected in the sig, instead there is only a nonexistent pseudonym. Two people have tried to ask them to change, and explained the reasons for these norms, but they become defensive and indignant and flatly refuse. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar problem, with this user, who had only a link to Special:Emailuser as his sig link (e.g.). He hasn't edited much since though.

As for what to do when a user refuses to be considerate, the only real recourse is WP:ANI, I think. --Quiddity 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't seem important enough for ANI, particularly as WP:SIG is only a guideline and at that it only describes user & talk links as conventions rather than requirements. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 3#Underwrought signatures? (i.e., Linkless), which I'm going to add in to the guideline now. --Quiddity 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem(s) with bold signatures

One of the main problems with eye-catching signatures, is the counterpoint to the statement that people "can find their comments easily on a crowded talk page".
They obscure or overwhelm a thread visually, much like gratuitous text-formatting does. They make it harder to pick out the signal (any relevant links), when scanning down a crowded talkpage.
They also make it harder to pick out default-style-signatures, from the mess of bright-custom-signatures.

They're like the WikiProject Stargate banner (see Talk:Stargate) that refuses to adopt the standard color scheme, and thereby screws up the intended-simplicity of the talkpage-banner-system's consistent style.
They're lacking in empathy.

Instead, I'd suggest using Javascipt to highlight your own sig, privately.

(just add that code to your monobook.js page, and replace the 2 instances of "ais523" with your own username. Change the default red background (backgroundColor="#FF0000") to whatever you desire.)

And then be as creative as you desire within your own userpages. --Quiddity 19:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you don't even need to change ais523 to your own username; the code mentioning ais523 is there to prevent a bad conflict between that script and one of my other scripts; it uses the username of the logged-in user to determine what to highlight. (If you don't use my edit counter, it doesn't matter whether you change that script or not.) --ais523 16:56, 17 July 2007 (U T C)

Further archived threads, detailing the problems custom signatures cause:

Subst:signature

Can users get around the 255 character limit by putting in their preferences something like: {{subst:User:USERNAME/sig}}. This would be bad. Tcrow777 talk 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone there? Tcrow777 talk 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my question: why do you need to annoy other users with your flashy sig? ∴ Alex Smotrov 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the technical answer, but the philosophical one is to read wp:beans. There are many ways one could harm things, or game the system... Just don't! --Quiddity 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not gaming the system, if this problem does exist it is a very serious one (how would you like it if someones sig took up an entire page). I will test it out to see if the problem does exist. Tcrow777 talk 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, subst:sig can allow the sig to be more than 255 characters. Unless there's a special reason for using it (like me, for which MediaWiki doesn't like the code, but it's under 255 chars), just don't. (→O - R L Y?) 02:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran the test and it worked, I am still running it. Tcrow777 talk 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to file this as a bug report as soon as I possibly can. Tcrow777 talk 02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please first look for existing bugs. I remember devs complaining that susbting in signatures is still not recursive, so people still can use templates in sigs. It might be related.

Also, sig length should be a policy, because no technical means will prevent users from simple copy-and-paste.

P.S. Your own sig is horrible ∴ Alex Smotrov 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I filed the bug report here. Tcrow777 talk 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy must be used to back up technical means; the technical means are just there to help remind users to follow policy. There are any number of ways around the limit (I can think of at least 3), but that doesn't mean its a good idea to use them. --ais523 08:54, 27 July 2007 (U T C)

The bug report will most likely be dismissed. Tcrow777 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

When talking to or about a user on a talk page, is it appropriate for another user to copy there sig (Hello, New England ^{(C) (H)} I disagree with your reversion of my edit...) New England ^{(C) (H)} 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Whenever I'm talking with somebody, rather than writing out their entire name, I typically just copy and paste it from the post above. I usually try to avoid the formatting (color, font, etc), but there is nothing inappropriate about copying somebody's signature in this way. - auburnpilot talk 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen it more recently than usual and wondering if there were rules about it. New England ^{(C) (H)} 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be confusing to do that, as the styled "signature" is only expected to appear when the actual user enters ~~~~. Probably harmless, but I would recommend against it. --Quiddity 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...perhaps, but either way it gets the job done, so it's really your preference.brickdude 06:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus: Purpose of signature section

I would like to get a consensus about adding language to this section something like this:

Another purpose of the four-tilde signature is to help maintain verifiable records of contributions and deletions. Although a user may manually type in a name as their identity, if they are contributing from multiple IP addresses, the history of their contributions will be scattered among those IP addresses. When disputes arise, it is important to be able to check all of the IP addresses used, not just one or two which may have only fragmentary records of what that user has done.

It is highly preferable that an editor always log in under the same name, and use the four-tilde signature which will automatically record that name. However, even editors who do not formally log in should provide a four-tilde signature, whether they manually type in a name or not.

This isn't just a sockpuppet issue. Some people may, in good faith, make contribs without logging on in their main user name, expecting that if they type in their name manually, all is well. However, if they came in from a dynamic (or new static) IP without logging in, a mediator or arbitrator trying to check the record of who-did-what will look in vain on the contribs page for the name which was manually typed in. Whatever happened won't be there; it will be on the contribs page of the anon IP number. I realize the draft language in the box is awkward and welcome better phrasing. -- Lisasmall 04:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"~" on the keyboards

When I first joined Wikipedia, I had had a rather silly problem - I didn't know where ~ is on my keyboard... It's alt+1. Martin 12:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...or Shift+1 J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On my current keyboard (United States English) it's Shift-` (the key to the immediate left of the 1.) I suspect that it migrates around rather a lot depending on your jurisdiction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On a UK keyboard, shift-# is probably the most likely thing to press to produce a ~. --ais523 10:59, 30 September 2007 (U T C)

templates

I suggest we add something to say that even on the talk pages it is unnecessary to "sign" a template, say for example, {{WPCouncil}}. The history provides sufficient record if someone wants to know who tagged it. Rarely will a project's tag be controversial, and if it is it should be discussed below.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, since those are banners, not comments. One only needs to sign comments. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Trick that bypasses 255 character limit

Apparently anyone can get past the 255 character limit for signatures by making their raw signature a template, and the contents of the template the sig. This becomes subst'ed automatically, and we are then hit with a sig that can be of any size (because the software only checked the text in the signature field in the preferences). For example, if I set my raw signature to {{User:Ned Scott/sandbox3}}, I can then sign each comment with the entire first paragraph of the article from Chad. The software only counts the characters "{{User:Ned Scott/sandbox3}}". Thoughts on how to plug this hole? -- Ned Scott 07:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters, we could warn users against doing this, shorten their templates, and block them from editing if they persist (with the explanation that they'll be unblocked as soon as they agree to stop).

Ideally, the problem should be corrected in MediaWiki. —David Levy 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Date format.

SineBot's adding additional dates to my talk page edits because I'm not using the fully written out date with "UTC" (sic), but using the ISO 8601/RFC 3339 format instead. Slakr seems to demand that everyone use ~~~~, or opt out for the bot - and I'm not planning on opting out for every bot that comes out (opt in, sure). Is using the ~~~~ format a requirement, because this guideline doesn't seem to say so? HagermanBot worked fine. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-20t11:53z —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely easier if everyone uses the standard format. It's easier for users to recognise and understand the standard timestamp format, and also makes it possible for bots (that auto-archive pages, for example) to recognise dates. Using the standard, or opting out (and thereby potentially causing problems) are your only options, afaik. --Quiddity 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait... so how do you change the colour?

I am still so confused about how to change your signature. I have seen many who have even changed the font. There should be a more detailed link on the page for users who are in the dark (since it is in 'a nutshell').

''Shokwaav'' 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:How to fix your signature; is that what you're looking for? --ais523 10:58, 30 September 2007 (U T C)

What's wrong with my signature?

I tried to change my signature so that the font color is purple, but when I do use it, well... just look at my signature. Can anyone tell me how to fix it?--Shroopliss 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the "raw signature" box in your preferences. You need to change the signature itself to say:

[[User:Shroopliss|Shroopliss]]

— Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!--Shroopliss 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shroopliss for asking and CBM for answering! I've ben wondering about that...oh sorry didn't mean to interrupt...brickdude 06:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's a wiki, some of the more productive things I've done have been started by jumping into other people's conversations. --ais523 09:09, 6 November 2007 (U T C)

Signature icon should incorporate a space

Shroopliss and Random832 would seem to be the only signatures on this page that have used the signature icon on the toolbar option without editing. Many have probably used it but seen the need to modify it as I shall.
I quote from "How to sign your posts":
2. If you are using the edit toolbar option (it appears above the edit screen as a default), click the signature icon to add the four tildes.
OK - so I usually choose this way of signing instead of inserting four tildes and, as you know, the signature icon introduces two dashes.
Recently it caused a problem as I refered to a hyperlink page on German wikipedia at the end of my discussion post, (could have been any http: web address), and the highlighted link incorporated the two dashes (at one point playing in my sandbox I managed to incorporate even part of my signature in the hyperlink the same way). If the signature icon were to incorporate a space before the two dashes (is everybody on this edit page, except the named duo, putting it in themselves before they use the signature icon?) the space would both set off the signature better and avoid this problem. Please compare http://wikipedia.org User:Brenont 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC) and http://wikipedia.org--User:Brenont 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC) with http://wikipedia.org --User:Brenont 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigs and disruptiveness

I see we consider those stupid "SIGN" links disruptive, good I hate them. Question, there is a particular user, who I actually like and does decent work, but his sig has been annoying me for months, a few people have commented to him about it and he has pretty much brushed that off. Is there anyway we can get the disruptive internal links removed from User:TonyTheTiger's sig? Any help would be appreciated. IvoShandor 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(TonyTheTiger /t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM): this is his sig, exactly (except it's smaller), the parentheticals are links to various places, most of which don't seem to be included in this guideline as acceptable, see the links above. I am hoping to resolve this without any further action.IvoShandor 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, I just don't think that the first impression we want to give new Wikipedians, or readers is that some of our most prolific contributors are hopelessly bitter about not being able to call themselves "directors". This is why I, and I suspect others, have found this particular sig disruptive. IvoShandor 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked about my sig for three reasons. 1.) People think it is too long. I shortened it to keep it within a 2-3 line range. Then when the 256 character limit went into effect, I clipped it a little more. 2.) some people don't like the joke (or as IVO describes it bitterness although I prefer joke), but many persons make jokes in their sig. 3.) people think there may be some confusion with Tony The Tiger. I seem to have convinced people that since I am a well-known martial artist who uses "Tony The Tiger" as a stage name, since the Tiger is a sacred animal to martial artists, since my name is Tony and I went to Junior High School, Senior High School and College at schools with Tiger as a mascot, and since I went to business school at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is located just over an hour away from Tony the Tiger's home in Battle Creek, Michigan, I could go on using TonyTheTiger.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your TonyTheTiger name, and I don't even want to delete the page you have linked, I am just asking that you remove the link to your "joke" from it, that's all. I don't think a lot of people would see it as a joke, while it is kind of cryptic (more riddlish), it isn't really funny, like jokes are. It seems to express some resentment, why isit linked in your sig? IvoShandor 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, we will see what others think, if no one else has a problem with it I will begrudgingly let it go, and try to simply overlook it. IvoShandor 15:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Announcing my new signature:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sign here!

Under WP:SIG#Internal_links, it says "Do not place any disruptive internal links, such as <super>SIGN HERE!!!</super>, which refers to an autograph page." - I have seen several users with such links in the sig. I'm reluctant to point them to this paragraph, so my question is: Shouldn't that sentence either be deleted or enforced? —AldeBaer 03:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just politely ask them to remove the links. If they're reasonable people they'll do so. If they refuse, you'll have learned something useful about their character. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. Thank you and will do! —AldeBaer 08:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

hi! well, not the most recent discussion, but I just encountered it. I think this is a misunderstanding by AldeBaer as the ~~policy~~ guideline doesn't intend to cover the usage of sign pages but just trying to point out that so. should take care about their raw signature to get them properly done. The attention should be on the missing "]" (at least I do hope so as I'm using a stupid sign here! markup too..). HTurtle ^{(talk2me • sign)} 10:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The intent is to get users to place links like this on their userpage instead, where they belong, instead of cluttering up article talkpages with superfluous code and unnecessary messages. I'd recommend that you remove the "sign" from your sig. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

hmm, I see - it's hard to tell what's really meant. once I read it a second time I now deduce it's more about the upper case and the (repeated) use of exclamation marks where the lacking "]" is just a sort of mistake on the article's page.
<kiddie mode> can I make sth. up as I don't link to my main userspace..? - WP:NOOB; oh, and some are using a contrib. link too (I know, don't do just what all the others do..) </kiddie mode>. what I want to point out: it's all relative..
however, I think with the advent of the char-cut it has became quite difficult to show up with an entirely inappropriate signature. HTurtle ^{(talk2me • sign)} 20:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC) and yes, if it's really that annoying I'm gonna remove it in some near future .. so, not here to argue about that.